from the almost-there dept

For as long as I've had the privilege to write for Techdirt, I've had a special interest in sports leagues and their methods for broadcasts, with a particular eye towards blackouts and internet streaming. My motto has always been: just let me watch the damned game! It's never made sense to me how the major pro sports leagues seem to pass on opportunities to expand streaming options, particularly given the trend towards cutting the cable cord that continues to this day. In conjuction with this is the fact that sports broadcasts remain one of the few things keeping cable television relevant and preventing subscription numbers from absolutely tumbling. The moment sports become easily accessible via the internet, with local blackouts removed and ad revenue driving the costs down, it's over for cable.

That's what makes the new broadcast deal the NBA recently signed with ESPN and Turner Broadcasting somewhat exciting, as the league has insisted on expanding the streaming availability in certain areas, even while keeping the streaming operations with Turner. The landmark deal, which is for $2.6 billion annually, should mean expanded viewing options for fans. But first, the bad news.

Turner currently runs NBA.com, NBA Mobile, NBA TV, and NBA League Pass, and will continue to do so. This runs counter to the recent trend of leagues clawing back digital operations that they'd originally outsourced. In the early 2000s most sports leagues decided they didn't have the expertise to deal with digital and mobile, so they let somebody else pay them to do it. But as this revenue stream has grown, so has the leagues' desire to bring digital back into the fold. This will not be the case in the NBA.

Which is unfortunate for a number of reasons. First off, the NBA.TV product is pretty sub-par compared with what the other major leagues are doing in streaming. MLB.TV in particular has set the standard, with all kinds of options for different broadcasts, camera angles, and announcing calls. Even what the NFL does in putting many of their games on the websites of the broadcast partners for free is a decent platform. Turner, for its part, has never seemed up to the task. The other reason why it's important for leagues to take back ownership of their streaming product is because it severs one of the ties to a broadcast partner with an interest in driving most viewers to the television product. Once leagues expand their streaming product and begin monetizing the ad revenue that can come from it, they need television far less, and streaming will really open up. That can't happen under this deal.

But that doesn't mean the NBA doesn't see the writing on the wall long-term. To understand the following part of the new contract, you have to also understand that the NBA insisted on expanded nationally televised games. The new deal means no less than roughly 14% of the games will be televised by either ESPN/ABC or TNT. It may not seem like a huge number, but this is a significant move, something like a 20% increase in games available nationwide. Couple that with the following and it should be easy to see what the NBA has planned for the next time it negotiates a broadcast contract.

You'll be able to stream nationally televised games without needing cable: Currently, the NBA's only streaming option is NBA League Pass, which is a steaming pile of garbage. One of the biggest problems is that the 142 nationally televised games, 96 NBA TV games, and all playoff games aren't available, meaning you can't actually watch the most important games. The NBA fan still needs to have cable.

But per today's announcement, the league has "established a framework" with ESPN to "negotiate the launch of a new over-the-top offering in which the league would receive equity interest." In this context, over-the-top means "internet and mobile streaming." According to the Wall Street Journal, this streaming service will be separate from ESPN's WatchESPN app, which is a walled garden you can access only if you already pay for cable. The details are far from finalized, but it looks like fans will soon be able to watch nationally televised games without having to pay for cable, a major consumer win.

Bigger than most even realize, I suspect, because this is a move designed to expand the streaming product as a standalone from cable subscriptions, such that the next contract will have an even larger streaming option provision, if it includes the broadcast partners at all. If the NBA can hook fans on streaming for free, it can use that to reclaim the streaming product the next time around and build an ad-revenue base off of the viewership numbers.

If you're wondering why Disney and TNT allowed for this at all, the answer is easy: they had to. As I said, sports broadcasts are driving an insane amount of the cable business being done today and none of the other major sports leagues have deals up for renewal any earlier than 2020. The NBA was a huge commodity. What's interesting is seeing the obvious positioning of streaming the NBA is presenting for their future.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's been a while since the dotcom boom days when human billboard tattoos were all the rage. Getting a tattoo is usually not considered a prudent decision, but it does attract attention... and that's usually what people are trying to get with tattoos. Maybe tattoo advertising is making a comeback, or maybe it's just as permanent as the ink in people's skin. Just make sure if you're getting a tattoo for money, that you really like your corporate sponsors.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Baseball fans have been fascinated with player statistics for a really, really long time. Sabermetrics changed a few things about baseball in recent years, so it's about time other sports started looking into more rigorous data analysis, too. Fantasy team managers and actual professional coaches are both looking for diamond-in-the-rough players, and more player statistics are being collected and analyzed to find them. Here are just a few interesting developments in the field of performance analysis.

from the fear-the-clown-brow-question-bro dept

Ah, the wonders of trademark law and sports stars. Earlier this year, we wrote about the rush to trademark "Linsanity" when afterthought point guard Jeremy Lin suddenly became an overnight sensation for the NY Knicks. In that case, a bunch of others sought the trademark, and a week or so later, Jeremy Lin himself jumped in to try to get the trademark as well. A quick search at the USPTO shows nine "live" trademarks on Linsanity (well, eight that are just "Linsanity" and one that is "Linsanity 17" -- which is Lin's uniform number). For what it's worth, it seems like only one of those marks is actually held by Jeremy Lin, and it certainly looks like there may be some overlap, so perhaps there will be some litigation at some point.

Apparently, young sports stars are very quickly learning to rush to the trademark office. Baseball phenom Bryce Harper -- at 19 already living up to the massive expectations Sports Illustrated lumped on his shoulders three years ago -- recently got some attention for telling a Canadian reporter "that's a clown question, bro" in response to a question about his favorite beer and if he was going to go out and celebrate with a beer since he's of legal drinking age in Canada (where they were playing).

The very next day, Harper filed for a trademark on "that's a clown question, bro." It almost makes you wonder if he'd been saving up that line... As of the latest search, he's the only one filing for it so far, but the link above notes that a brewery in Colorado has already brewed up a batch of beer called "Clown Question, Bro." Since Harper's application is for apparel, it's unlikely it applies to beer. Though, if it were me, I probably would have called it "Clown Question, Brew." Either way, Under Armour, the sporting goods company that Harper has a deal with already, has said that it's going to be releasing a "line" of shirts around the "clown question, bro" phrase.

“I don’t want anyone to try to grow a unibrow because of me and then try to make money off of it,” Davis told CNBC. “Me and my family decided to trademark it because it’s very unique.”

I'm not quite sure how one "tries to grow a unibrow" if they don't have one already -- and if they legitimately have one, then why is it that only Davis gets to make money from his unibrow? For what it's worth, as the article notes, the phrase has been popular for a while, surrounding his success at Kentucky, but he couldn't profit from it as that would cut into his eligibility as an amateur (cue rant about stupid college sports rules). Either way, lots of "bootleg" apparel was sold -- some of which the university tried to stop, though I'm not sure they had any legal basis for doing so in many cases. There was also one local store, Blue Zone, that sold stuff and filed for its own trademark on the phrase for apparel. There may be an issue there. Davis' trademark application is super broad in terms of what he claims it will apply to. Blue Zone's mark is just for clothing, but Davis' is for a ton of stuff, including clothing, but also fragrances, entertainment "services," water bottles, book covers, pencils, trading cards, lunch bags, facial tissues and much, much more.

Does Davis have the right to supercede Blue Zone's mark just because he's the one who has the actual unibrow?

Either way, it seems like a sign of the times, that sports stars these days are rushing to the trademark office at every opportunity to file trademarks on some identifying characteristic. I'm not sure this is a positive development.

from the this-isn't-going-to-end-well dept

What is it with super rich sports owners and SLAPP suits? Remember Redskins owner Dan Snyder? Well here's a situation that seems even more ridiculous. Ranaan Katz is a minority owner of the Miami Heat, who just won the NBA championship. You might think he'd be pretty happy right now. Instead, he's suing a blogger and Google, claiming a copyright violation over of an "unflattering photo." Seeing as the photo in question is now quite newsworthy, here it is (and we're happy to explain fair use theories to Katz's lawyers, if they'd like):

The full story is even more ridiculous as you dig into the details. It turns out this is the second time that Katz has gone after this blogger. The first time was for defamation. For what? For running a blog that talked about Katz and his company... and, from the sound of things, posted legal documents that apparently Katz didn't want posted.

Where it gets really bizarre is the massive overreach on the defamation side of things. Because the bar for defamation on a public figure it quite high, Katz's lawyers claim that he's not a public figure -- despite being an owner of the Miami Heat, despite being a well-known successful real estate developer, and despite the fact that there's a street named after him and an "official day" in his honor. Instead, his lawyers have argued that getting the press to report on Katz's legal overreach is an attempt "to make Katz a public figure" even though he clearly is one and has been one. Either way, the blogger, represented by Marc Randazza, responded strongly to the ridiculousness of Katz' original lawsuit. You can see that response below, calling out the fact that a demand for an injunction against any future publication on the blog (as Katz requests) is clear prior restraint and based on no accepted legal theory in a defamation case.

Separate from that lawsuit, it looks like Katz and his lawyers have now tried a second approach, which appears to be an attempt to use the DMCA to censor. He claimed that the "unflattering image" above violates his copyright. A DMCA takedown was apparently issued to Google, who refused to comply. So now both the blogger and Google have been sued. Of course, it's unclear to me how he even holds the copyright in the photo, since he didn't take it. Either way, given the previous actions in the case, it certainly feels like this is a SLAPP-style suit, filed just to be a nuisance to the blogger who didn't fold under the defamation claims (and yes, to Katz's lawyer, that's an opinion). Update: I've added the filing in the copyright lawsuit below, which adds one other detail: the photograph is not registered for copyright in the US. Katz's lawyers point out that since the photo was originally from Israel it doesn't need to be registered, which is true, but could limit the effectiveness of any lawsuit. Separately, according to Randazza, Katz claims to have had the copyright in the photo assigned to him from the original photographer. None of that changes any of the analysis here about the lawsuits in question.

Of course, all this has really done is activate the Streisand Effect, and get a lot more attention to Katz, to the lawsuits, to the blog and, of course, to the photo itself. You would think that someone with so much money and business success would have thick enough skin to know how to ignore such things. In the meantime, Randazza has pointed out how bizarre it is to go from suing an individual blogger to adding one of the largest companies in the world to the fight on the other side, for no good reason:

My guess is that their strategy is this: If you keep whiffing against a small time blogger, you might as well then just pick a fight with one of the biggest companies in the world. Sit back and get your popcorn and watch how this one works out. I want to thank Mr. Katz for bringing in an 800 lb gorilla to help me in his unsupportable SLAPP suit.

We have yet to speak to Google's lawyers about this case, but we expect that they will be receptive to standing up for the First Amendment along with us.

Sometimes I think there should be mandatory training on the Streisand Effect before one is allowed to become a lawyer.

from the ownership-society dept

A guy named Charles Syrus apparently wrote a song that had the phrases "Go Thunder" and "Let's Go Thunder" in it, cheering on the Oklahoma City Thunder NBA team. Syrus then got a copyright on the song. And then... he claimed that the copyright for the song gave him the copyright in those two phrases, and demanded 20 to 30% of the teams' "net gross" (um...) for using those phrases in promotional campaigns. Not surprisingly, the district court and the appeals court rejected his lawsuit, noting that "we easily conclude that the phrases ‘Go Thunder’ and ‘Let’s Go Thunder’ do not reflect the minimal creativity required for copyright protection." And, finally (though to the surprise of pretty much no one, Syrus excepted), the Supreme Court has said it has no interest in hearing his appeal. Some will claim that this is no big deal, since the courts got it right and this clear overreach of copyright law went nowhere legally. However, it does seem like yet another sign of the insanity of our culture today and the suggestion that everything and every phrase is "ownable" thanks to modern IP laws. You wouldn't even have a case like this if people didn't think it was possible to abuse copyright in this manner -- and given the headlines we see of crazy sounding copyright cases all the time, it shouldn't be any surprise at all that people are tying up courts with ridiculous claims like this one.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Moneyball (the movie) has recently popularized the concept of sabermetrics, but for a while now, real sports fans (and mathletes) have been applying rigorous analysis to just about every sport. There still aren't any sure bets, but forecasting player performance has gotten a lot better in the last decade or so. Here are just a few examples of math geeks taking some shots at jocks.

from the wow dept

As you may have heard, the NBA and the NBA Players Association did not hit their deadline last night to reach a new collective bargaining agreement, and thus began a lockout/work stoppage. Of course, we're not a sports blog, so what's interesting about that for us? Well.... apparently over the last few days, the webmasters for all of the NBA team websites have been scrambling like mad, because they believe that when the players are locked out, there can be no mention or image of any player on any NBA webpage:

That's because the moment the clock strikes midnight on the current CBA, all those images and videos of NBA players have to disappear off NBA-owned digital properties. Depending on how you interpret "fair use," the prohibition could include the mere mention of a player's name on an NBA-owned site, though different teams have different interpretations of this particular stipulation.

That's from ESPN... who doesn't give any more detail as to what it is they actually think would be infringing here. It's certainly not copyright, even though that's implied. There's no copyright in names. And the copyright on the images would be held by whoever took the images, not the players. I'm assuming this is more of a publicity rights issue, which we've been discussing a lot lately. But those are generally based on a patchwork of state laws. And, even so, I can't quite see how that would prevent teams from accurately listing players who were on the team. That's factual information. But not according to the teams:

There are additional gray areas that are still up for discussion: What about a photo of a Lakers fan wearing a No. 24 Kobe Bryant jersey? What about a retrospective feature on the John Stockton-Karl Malone Jazz teams? Do tweets from the team's official Twitter feed that mention a player and/or link to an image need to be deleted? How about Facebook posts?

Nobody seems to know for certain the definitive answers to these questions and the criteria seem to be arbitrary. According to more than one team website staffer, the cutoff for images of retired players right now stands at 1992-93 -- Shaquille O'Neal's first season in the league. And social media is an area they're still grappling with as the deadline approaches.

However strict the boundaries, overhauling the architecture of these sites is a painstaking process that has a lot of talented web people around the league very stressed out. The NBA has built and furnished each team with a website "wire frame" that will take the place of the existing, much more sophisticated site. The wire frame is a rudimentary version of the site, without a lot of the snazzy technology we've grown accustomed to seeing. As a result, each of the 30 team sites will look virtually identical.

It looks like those "new" sites are in place. I've looked around at a few team sites, and while they may have old players (from decades ago), most traces of modern players have disappeared. They do list the names of players on the team under the "team" tab, but otherwise, the players seem almost entirely absent. And for what reason? Intellectual property shouldn't be part of a labor fight. It's got nothing to do with that. The whole thing just seems silly.

from the seems-a-bit-pricey dept

We've noted that the NFL has instituted its own overly restrictive social media policy that limits how and when players can send Twitter messages, but I hadn't realized that the NBA had done something similar as well. Unfortunately, it looks like Brandon Jennings of the Milwaukee Bucks ran afoul of those rules and was fined $7,500 for a single Twitter message. What awful thing did he say? Well, he was actually just happy about a victory:

"Back to 500. Yess!!! "500" means where doing good. Way to Play Hard Guys."

Seems like the sort of thing the NBA should be encouraging. It's a nice connection with fans, who feel that they're getting in on some of the excitement from a player they like. So, what was the problem? Well, the NBA "rules" say no Twittering until after the media sessions are done after the game. So, basically, he was too anxious to spread the excitement to his fans. And this is fine-worthy? It's hard to make sense of a policy that tells players not to connect with fans, and not to let them in on the excitement.

from the seriously? dept

JJ sent in yet another story of intellectual property claims getting in the way of what actually makes sense. At the NBA all-star event, 5'7" NBA player Nate Robinson surprised a lot of people by winning the slam dunk competition, which brought a lot of attention to his "alter-ego" Krypto-Nate, something of a play on another player dressing up as Superman. The NBA (reasonably so) thought it would be fun to offer special t-shirts, in the color green, with the "Krypto-Nate" name on the back... until issues surrounding potential fights with DC Comics, owners of certain IP around Superman, came into play. The story isn't entirely clear concerning who made the final decision to back down from the promotion -- and, it may have just been folks at the NBA hoping to do future deals with DC Comics -- but the planned promotion was clearly shelved and worries about IP issues were the apparent reason. It's not clear that DC Comics would have had any actual legal claim on such a shirt, but just the fact that IP worries over such an obvious and reasonable promotion caused it to be killed (once again) highlights the ridiculous impact of IP laws gone nuts.